The Need for a Subservient Military
The anti-subversion campaigns that occurred in Latin America throughout the Cold War gave rise to many opportunistic leaders who saw an easy route to power by claiming that they were, in essence, going to make their country great again. Unfortunately this would usually come at the expense of anyone the government deemed an enemy of the state, which in this case was pretty much anyone who did not support the country, and the new authoritarian ruler, wholeheartedly.
While I understand the argument that many of the military leaders, once the transition to civilian government, should not have been punished because it would further divide the country and potentially lead to another military takeover, a military that cannot be reeled in is an accident waiting to happen. There are essentially three main problems with having a military so autonomous, that they cannot be held accountable for their actions previously.
The first and most obvious is that if and when the military leadership and the civilian leadership have a difference of opinions, the natural next move will be a military coup. This would only set the country back further in its progress as a nation and in terms of economic growth. Democratic institutions, one could argue, largely gain their strength from the length of their governance. If a regime change occurs with the frequency of that of Latin America during the 20th century, it becomes harder to keep an established government because anyone who feels discredited by the current government believes they have a chance in a regime change. Therefore the stability of the government rests first in its legitimacy, but if the legitimacy is not there, then it rests in its status as an institution, particularly an institution that is not subject to change solely because a small group of individuals are unhappy. A change in regime will also affect the economic progress of a nation because inevitably, even if the new regime vows to keep the same institutions in place, the economy will stagnate as the transition occurs and new men are put into power to run the economy. Even if this stint in economic growth is short term, in a world where global economic presence is essential to the survival of a state, any economic decrease is a bad one.
If democracy indeed gets its strength from its legitimacy, a divided democracy would be viewed very poorly and would not last. Therefore, the second problem with having a semi-autonomous military is that it shows the countries weakness. The principles of democracy are built upon elected leadership. Therefore, if a countries’ elected government cannot control its defenses, the elected government is useless. Latin American nations’ only hope at achieving true democracy occur when they can finally reel in their military, hold them accountable, and make them subordinate so that the citizens of that country and the other countries in the world perceive a unified front.
The military, whether in theory or in practice in Latin America, is also viewed as an extension of the government, and therefore if the military is not viewed as a legitimate organization, neither is the government. This becomes important when looking at the trials of military leaders in Argentina after they transitioned to a civilian run government because the military, by not allowing itself to be held accountable for past transgressions, was declaring itself immune from the laws that governed the country and immune from the rules of democracy. Once the government allows itself to be ruled by the popularly elected civilian government, then it will be viewed as legitimate and so will the government, which will increase the life expectancy of democracy in that country.
Because Latin America has had such a tumultuous past, a strong military was seen as necessary. However, a strong military, and a military that is subservient to a civilian government are not mutually exclusive, take a look at the United States for example. As Latin America’s militaries continue to become integrated into the democracies their countries are building, they will find that stability will follow as well.